I genuinely liked that film. The Guy Ritchie, modern day heist, wobbly camera, fast talking bits, were actually my least favorite bit. But the various fantasy elements, and the way it becomes more classically framed as he begins to embrace his destiny, I thought those were perfectly fine. Arthurian legends are fucking weird, and the mystical beliefs of the time period, and region at that time, are also fucking weird, so it didn't really feel all that strange to me. I felt it was a solid 3/5. Perfectly serviceable film, that I enjoyed watching.
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
I've read some of the og stuff, written by a guy who was a P.O.W. at the time. Kinda a window into the time period and its values. For instance, Lancelot is not all full of angst for his feelings for Arthur's wife. That came like 1,000 years later in French update. In the day? Just a thing that happens. A Queen was just expected to be discreet.
Well the thing is that the Arthurian legends are a collection of a bunch of weird tales, of different figures scattered across centuries of oral tradition. AND, the celtish mythology of...I can never recall how to exactly spell it, but the Tir Nah Nog, is just weird as fuck. I recall reading a couple fantasy novels and a role playing game with that pantheon as a key figure, and the shit they came up with for their fey lands, was just crazy. So when Arthur, in the film, went into the shadow realms to prove his mettle, I just said "Oh, ok well I guess he's going into the fey lands, so...shit be weird"
But even if it's not "accurate", I don't really care? There is no established "true" story for this stuff anyway, so I just measure it based on if I enjoyed it or not. I'm not grading the film for historical accuracy, about a potentially fictional character, who has a plethora of conflicting stories about him anyway. It's all just crazy fun stuff. And for me at least, I enjoyed Guy's take. I could've done without so much Guy Ritchie-ness in the first half, like I said, but that's mostly just I found the cinematography visually jarring and vertigo inducing, and the speedy street talking just felt too much like I was watching Snatch. It kind of took me out of it. The rest of it though, I thought was perfectly fine.
I rewatched "Solo: A Star Wars Story". I've seen it a couple times over the years since it came out and overall my fondness for it hasn't lessoned much. On recent re-evaluation I'm far more willing to acknowledge it's flaws. The writing is not terrible, but not great either. I'm in that ultimate minority of fans that not only hated all 3 of the new trilogy films about also adored the two side films on release.
There's not a lot of meat to this movie and I can see why it wouldn't appeal to the broader audience of Star Wars fan fandom. It doesn't say anything of note. It's predictable and straight forward. There's no Jedis and the stakes are pretty low. I think that's actually why I'm so forgiving of it. It's existence doesn't matter. You can really take it or leave it within star wars canon. It provides very little insight into Han's character or back story and has the slimmest tangential relationship to even the original trilogy. It reminds me a lot of 70-80s scifi b movies. When I was a teenager we used to play the Star Wars pen & paper game where you played as smugglers and mercenaries so this film naturally appeals to me more so that the main films that tell me I must know Reys backstory and watch her grow as a Jedi or whatever. I was one of those kids who dreamed of being Han more than Luke. It also definitely benefits from having Woody harrleson and Paul Bettany in the cast as well as Thandiwe Newton. There's notable elevation to the dialog quality every time they're on screen. If I had to change anything I'd -
A. Toss the Maul reference. I hate that pandering shit and it looks really out of place.
B. I think it would have benefited from more time spent with Han in the empire. Even one or two scenes. I think him seeing more death and disillusionment would have better served his character. He's still a bit too plucky by the end of this.
C. Alden Ehrenreich is ok, and by the end of it I can see "some" of the natural ford smarm seeping out, but having heard they had to really pry a good performance out of him I can believe it. I think they could have done better.
All that said as the story goes, Howard supposedly rewrote this from the ground up after the Lego guys got fired and refilmed something like 70% of the movie. Even if its terrible or Star Wars way of Talladega Nights I'd still kill to see the original. I love those film urban myth stories.
There's not a lot of meat to this movie and I can see why it wouldn't appeal to the broader audience of Star Wars fan fandom. It doesn't say anything of note. It's predictable and straight forward. There's no Jedis and the stakes are pretty low. I think that's actually why I'm so forgiving of it. It's existence doesn't matter. You can really take it or leave it within star wars canon. It provides very little insight into Han's character or back story and has the slimmest tangential relationship to even the original trilogy. It reminds me a lot of 70-80s scifi b movies. When I was a teenager we used to play the Star Wars pen & paper game where you played as smugglers and mercenaries so this film naturally appeals to me more so that the main films that tell me I must know Reys backstory and watch her grow as a Jedi or whatever. I was one of those kids who dreamed of being Han more than Luke. It also definitely benefits from having Woody harrleson and Paul Bettany in the cast as well as Thandiwe Newton. There's notable elevation to the dialog quality every time they're on screen. If I had to change anything I'd -
A. Toss the Maul reference. I hate that pandering shit and it looks really out of place.
B. I think it would have benefited from more time spent with Han in the empire. Even one or two scenes. I think him seeing more death and disillusionment would have better served his character. He's still a bit too plucky by the end of this.
C. Alden Ehrenreich is ok, and by the end of it I can see "some" of the natural ford smarm seeping out, but having heard they had to really pry a good performance out of him I can believe it. I think they could have done better.
All that said as the story goes, Howard supposedly rewrote this from the ground up after the Lego guys got fired and refilmed something like 70% of the movie. Even if its terrible or Star Wars way of Talladega Nights I'd still kill to see the original. I love those film urban myth stories.
Last edited:
I love Solo. Yeah it's not great, but all of the films have their issues. I don't hate the new trilogy, and genuinely find TFA and TLJ to be good films, Rise can go stuff it though.
I would've liked to see them maybe doing a montage of smaller jobs or something, leading UP to the big fuel heist. Just a few bits, showing him fucking up from time to time, but also beginning to learn the ropes. I think they did just fine showing him learning as he went, but I felt it rushed a bit to this big heist, which was enjoyable, if a bit hurried in my opinion.
A. Yes, the Maul reference served no purpose other than to be connective tissue to the franchise, and to have (in theory) fanboys cream their pants at a reference. Failed utterly.
B. Eh, I don't really care about him in the Empire. I'm fine with just "he had discipline issues, and got out ASAP" Having worked with veterans, many of which left early due to bad behavior and the like, I can just handwave that. "Yeah, not everyone that enlists is a good fit, unsurprisingly, a person with issues with authority, is one of them"
C. I thought he did just fine. He had charm and poise when he needed to, and bumbling baffoonery when he needed it. I felt his chemistry with Chewie was pretty solid. I thought the two of them, slowly building the comradery with each new struggle, felt very real and organic. He expressed genuine concern for Chewie when he was in danger, bantered with him jovially when it mattered, and just overall, I felt they had good scenes together.
I wish there had been more L337, as I just loved her to death. Her sheer joy at the robot chaos she unleashed by accident at the mining facility, has me beaming every time I see it.
I really don't get why people dislike that film so much. It has lumpy bits sure, but again, all of the franchise has lumpy bits. It's fucking Star Wars.
The Bank Job is a good movie. Felt like it was much older than 2008, not because it takes place in 1971 but the style of film making, though I really enjoyed it, seemed of another period. The camera, for instance, was not jerking to new subjects every 2 seconds for no other reason than to try to keep the audiences attention. Director Roger Donaldson has a pretty good record. I'll have to check out more of his stuff.
The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard: Greatness / Great
Having gone their separate ways after the conclusion of the first film, Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) and Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson) are worlds apart. The former is in therapy, still struggling over not re-netting his AAA bodyguard status, and the therapist advises he take some time off obsessing over bodyguarding. He tries to vacation in Italy only to find Sonya, Darius' wife, in the midst of a heated gun battle, has come to retrieve him to help her rescue Darius. Turns out, she and Kincaid had been trying to start a family (yeah) when he surreptitiously took another job and was captured. Violence, silliness and absurdity ensue.
If you saw the first film, you know what to expect, except this time, Sonya (Salma Hayek) is the main attraction in all of her violent and raunchy glory. Got several genuine laughs out of me. Ryan Reynolds is hilarious as always with his signature razor-sharp snark. Will watch again; highly recommended if you enjoyed the first film, or if you just like a good action/comedy.
Having gone their separate ways after the conclusion of the first film, Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) and Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson) are worlds apart. The former is in therapy, still struggling over not re-netting his AAA bodyguard status, and the therapist advises he take some time off obsessing over bodyguarding. He tries to vacation in Italy only to find Sonya, Darius' wife, in the midst of a heated gun battle, has come to retrieve him to help her rescue Darius. Turns out, she and Kincaid had been trying to start a family (yeah) when he surreptitiously took another job and was captured. Violence, silliness and absurdity ensue.
If you saw the first film, you know what to expect, except this time, Sonya (Salma Hayek) is the main attraction in all of her violent and raunchy glory. Got several genuine laughs out of me. Ryan Reynolds is hilarious as always with his signature razor-sharp snark. Will watch again; highly recommended if you enjoyed the first film, or if you just like a good action/comedy.
Last edited:
The extended editions of The Two Towers and Return of the King. Which had much better extendedness than the extended Fellowship of the Ring, which mostly was just more pointless padding. The latter two films have scenes that have stuff in them you might want to see.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,618
- 3,152
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Raya and the Last Dragon
What a disappointing movie.
The dialogue is generally not very well written, the the voice acting is kind of mediocre a lot of the time. The dragon designs look like my little pony knockoffs and don't fit with the rest of the aesthetic of the movie. All of the main characters are annoying.
The world is actually really interesting, and I would have really liked to see more of it, but because there's 6 nations each one only gets like 5 minutes. You see more of the characters sitting in a boat than you see any of the kingdoms they're visiting.
Overall just really didn't enjoy this despite really wanting to.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney spun this off into an animated show though, it feels like it would have fit that format much better.
What a disappointing movie.
The dialogue is generally not very well written, the the voice acting is kind of mediocre a lot of the time. The dragon designs look like my little pony knockoffs and don't fit with the rest of the aesthetic of the movie. All of the main characters are annoying.
The world is actually really interesting, and I would have really liked to see more of it, but because there's 6 nations each one only gets like 5 minutes. You see more of the characters sitting in a boat than you see any of the kingdoms they're visiting.
Overall just really didn't enjoy this despite really wanting to.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney spun this off into an animated show though, it feels like it would have fit that format much better.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,618
- 3,152
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of Solo, but I overall completely agree with your assessment. It's not a terrible movie by any means, it's just kind of mediocre. It's just kind of safe and boring. Like you said, it doesn't really say or do anything of note, and I don't think that the writing is particularly great, but it's fun enough and has some interesting action set-pieces.
Overall I just really wish that the new Star Wars movies would get out of their own way and try to do something interesting instead of just retreading the same territory over and over again. Ryan Johnson ALMOST did something interesting in episode 8, but then he decided not to and that's why I hate his movie the most (well that an all of Finn's arc being terribly written and acted, and entirely uninteresting and pointless).
I actually do like that we have at least a couple of Star Wars movies without Jedi in them now. It would be nice to have some more Star Wars stories in the Star Wars universe that weren't just all about laser swords going swish swish.
Decided to pop in my Blu Ray copy of The Crow. I still have my 2 Disc Collectors Edition too; I am never giving that up. It's still awesome. Despite being a product of the 90s and noticeable, the movie has aged well, aside from a few SFX. A tragic love and revenge story. The Crow shits on nearly all comic book movies. Not just the 90s, but those from the 2000s and 2010s too. This movie had a huge influence in not just comic movies, but other movies, and WCW (Sting's gimmick became the Crow for the rest 90s). The Crow gave influence to Blade (1998), Dark City, The Matrix, and Underworld (fucking garbage!). Either in looks, atmosphere, costume design, and music.
The Crow itself, not only got influences from Batman (1989). There's Heroic Bloodshed (The shootout at Top Dollars club and the final action scene in the Church), film-noir, and music videos. The movie may have dark moments, but there are plenty of light moments or those with humanity. The coloring in this movies proves that just because your dark, does not mean you can't have color. You can be dark, but not insecure about it, and not just have dull metal gray or dog-shit brown. The humor flows in naturally and does not have any of the MCU style humor, no Deadpool, nor constant lampshading, thank Christ! Sets it apart from everyone else and stick out positively. The action scenes are on point, and you get see more of Brandon Lee's athleticism one last time. The acting is great all across the board and no one misses a beat. Brandon is a treasure, and I still miss him.
I highly doubt this will ever happen, but if they ever decide to make another movie, just make it animated and either do an original story, or adapt one of the other Crow stories from the comics. I'd be okay with that.
The Crow itself, not only got influences from Batman (1989). There's Heroic Bloodshed (The shootout at Top Dollars club and the final action scene in the Church), film-noir, and music videos. The movie may have dark moments, but there are plenty of light moments or those with humanity. The coloring in this movies proves that just because your dark, does not mean you can't have color. You can be dark, but not insecure about it, and not just have dull metal gray or dog-shit brown. The humor flows in naturally and does not have any of the MCU style humor, no Deadpool, nor constant lampshading, thank Christ! Sets it apart from everyone else and stick out positively. The action scenes are on point, and you get see more of Brandon Lee's athleticism one last time. The acting is great all across the board and no one misses a beat. Brandon is a treasure, and I still miss him.
I highly doubt this will ever happen, but if they ever decide to make another movie, just make it animated and either do an original story, or adapt one of the other Crow stories from the comics. I'd be okay with that.
Last edited:
I'm a huge The Crow fan. The Soundtrack is still in my spotify rotation.
I think every couple years I hear they're working on a reboot or adaptation, but like Deadpool it's just waiting around for someone who really gives a shit to get it pushed. I've always kinda wanted to see "The Crow: Wild Justice" adapted. It takes The Crow to it's logical next step, showing that there's multiple sides to every story. I've never watched any of the movies after COA. The trailers...were not complimentary.
Slightly off-topic, but "Crow City of Angels" has always fascinated me because like the original the music soundtrack is amazing and all the themes and cityscapes are great, however the movie itself pretty much trash.
Goodbadflicks has a great short documentary showing what they originally intended and how Harvey Weinstein stepped in and ruined it in classic Hollywood fashion. For instance it was originally a whopping 160min and he made them cut it down to 84min. That's just one issue..
Saw the video back in 2015, I've subscribed to GoodBadFlicks (use to work for the Escapists before going solo again) for years, and very familiar with the COA's production troubles and history.
Downfall aka Der Untergang from 2004, 8/10.
Saw this movie like a decade ago the last time, so it was due for a revisit. And hoo boy is it a tough watch. It's non-stop stress, misery and tension for close to 2,5 hours. Not a movie you can just casually put on: you have to know what you're getting into. But that's by design, because otherwise you wouldn't get the severity of the situation. Watching it again I gained an all new appreciation for it: all the acting is fantastic even if Bruno Ganz is a showstealer as Hitler, the production value and design are immaculate, the absence of a musical score in 99% of the film lets it speak for itself without needing to direct the audience's emotional reaction one way or the other. The ensemble structure lets the film convey a suprisingly wide variety of viewpoints and reactions to the events taking place, and the fact that the film doesn't bother to try to make you keep up with who's who lets you see them less as characters and more as representations of the different types of end-of-war nazis: hardcore fanatics, bootlickers, skeptics, hopefuls and cynics. I also noticed the cinematography way more this time: the main man is usually shot in a very unflattering, matter-of-fact way, in either low or middle angles, hunched over with bad posture, a broken shell of a man.
Excellent film, and should be required viewing.
Saw this movie like a decade ago the last time, so it was due for a revisit. And hoo boy is it a tough watch. It's non-stop stress, misery and tension for close to 2,5 hours. Not a movie you can just casually put on: you have to know what you're getting into. But that's by design, because otherwise you wouldn't get the severity of the situation. Watching it again I gained an all new appreciation for it: all the acting is fantastic even if Bruno Ganz is a showstealer as Hitler, the production value and design are immaculate, the absence of a musical score in 99% of the film lets it speak for itself without needing to direct the audience's emotional reaction one way or the other. The ensemble structure lets the film convey a suprisingly wide variety of viewpoints and reactions to the events taking place, and the fact that the film doesn't bother to try to make you keep up with who's who lets you see them less as characters and more as representations of the different types of end-of-war nazis: hardcore fanatics, bootlickers, skeptics, hopefuls and cynics. I also noticed the cinematography way more this time: the main man is usually shot in a very unflattering, matter-of-fact way, in either low or middle angles, hunched over with bad posture, a broken shell of a man.
Excellent film, and should be required viewing.
Chiming in on this a bit, Ultron is best summarised in one word as "unfortunate" IMO. It had to both follow the first Avengers which was an unprecedented hit in cinema history, and also introduce a whole roster of new characters. It had to be also setting up future films, hence the really fucking awkward Thor pool scene, and nonsequitur Iron Man dream sequence. It's also also arguably one of the most important MCU movies plot wise, since events in it are pretty much necessary to understand Wandavision, Civil War and even Infinity War in some respects.
The unfortunateness continues with its style, which is best described as Joss Whedonism metastasising and taking over everything. There's really heavy stuff happening in it, both in terms of world and story implications, but also on a dramatic level: Hulk and Widow's relationship, Quicksilver and Wanda and how that ends, Cap and Iron Man butting heads. But nearly all of that is undercut by the constant. Fucking. Quips. and the need to wink at the camera. My guess is that after the success of the first and the acclaimed Cabin in the Woods Whedon was riding a career high and nobody dared to say no to him in the writers' room.
Nothing wrong with banter, but if it's used too much, not trying hard enough, trying too hard, or clashes with the more serious scenes. It comes off extra at best and annoying, tedious, or not clever at worst. I don't remember disliking the banter too much, but I was not exactly head over heels for it either in Age of Ultron. The MCU does have a problem with going overboard at times (though I feel it can be overly exaggerated from detractors and anti-MCU people) that Dante and Deadpool would tell the cast to tone it down. Devil May Cry (other than 2 or DmC!2013) and Deadpool knew how to balance it well with out going overboard.
It's not easy to balance this stuff, but there has to be a limit. See other comic movies like The Crow, The Dark Knight, Batman '89, Aquaman, Blade, X-Men 1 & 2, Spider-Verse, etc. They knew how to keep these balanced and appropriate. Shoot, John Carpenter knew how to balance this stuff in most of his action films.
Last edited:
I love good banter. I'd even throw in TMNT 1990 as a very emotionally powerful comic book movie, full of witty banter.
Wedon definitely crosses a line at the gags in AOU. It wasn't cringy like Justice League but the quips got real tired by the end.
